It may seem at first like an uncomplicated victory for Europe’s farmers, but as always, the devil is in the detail.
The provisional agreement struck on 10th November 2025 between the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union — under the Danish presidency — to simplify the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) comes with deeper questions for Brussels.
What has been agreed?
First, bureaucratic burdens are being eased for farmers in member states. The deal grants:
A cap of one farm inspection per year — reducing regulatory intrusion.
Greater flexibility for land labeled as “arable” — land declared as such on 1 January 2026 can retain its status even if not ploughed, tilled or reseeded, thus avoiding the costly “five-to-seven year” till-requirement.
A higher ceiling of financial support for smaller-scale farmers.
By design this is pitched as a competitive boost: more innovation, more productivity, less red tape. The aim is “to boost the competitiveness of European agriculture by cutting red tape, supporting farmers, including small farmers and business start-ups, encouraging innovation and boosting productivity.”
Why the relief is real
Many farmers in Europe have long complained that CAP-related administration was suffocating: mountains of forms, repeated inspections, ploughing requirements, and environmental add-ons that cost time and money. The simplification drive began with the European Commission’s May 2025 “Simplifying farmers’ lives” package, which promised to relieve regulatory burdens and stimulate competitiveness.
In that context, the agreement will come as a tangible signal: that Europe hears the farmer’s voice. Especially smaller operators stand to benefit from both fewer inspections and greater subsidy ceilings — matters of survival in a market increasingly squeezed by global competition.
But room for scepticism
Yes, the gesture is useful. But it poses significant risks — both to nature and to the coherence of the CAP itself. The very environmental flexibility built into the deal raises red flags. The ‘keep arable status even without ploughing’ concession, for example, invites questions about soil health, biodiversity and sustainable farming. The regulatory relief may prove a Trojan horse for erosions of environmental ambition.
Moreover, competitiveness is being pursued under the assumption that less regulation equals more growth. That may hold in the short term — but in a sector facing climate change, rising input costs, soil degradation and volatile markets, doubling down on “productivity at any cost” may prove a false economy.
Strategic and structural implications for Brussels
The CAP is arguably the single largest common policy in the European Union, absorbing around one-third of the budget in the 2021-2027 period. Simplification is presented as modernisation, yet it also speaks of a Brussels under pressure. Farmers’ protests, import competition, globalisation, shrinking margins — all have pushed the Commission and member states to act.
The danger is two-fold:
The first is that Europe’s green ambitions will be compromised by the urgency to relieve farmers. Incentives for environmental good practice may now lose urgency or be relegated behind growth imperatives.
The second is that Brussels is signalling: when the going gets tough, we will ease rules. This sets a precedent. If simplification becomes the default reaction rather than reform the objective, the Union may slowly relinquish normative ambition in favour of administrative expediency.
Winners, losers and hanging questions
Winners include the small-scale farmer who may see fewer inspections, less technical regulation and perhaps slightly higher ceilings on support. Agri-businesses might gain from fewer burdens and more flexibility to innovate or expand.
Losers may well include nature, the young farm entrant for whom long-term sustainability matters more than short-term support, and consumers? The subsidy-system may still favour larger holdings with economies of scale, unless checks are enforced.
Important questions linger:
Will member-states’ national CAP strategic plans adapt swiftly — or will simplification become a means for watering down enforcement rather than promoting innovation?
How will the trade-offs between environmental requirements and productivity play out in climate-vulnerable regions of Europe?
Finally: will the relief of bureaucracy translate into real structural reform (such as generational renewal, fairer distribution of aid) or simply a regulatory lightening without altering the underlying logic of subsidy dependence?
One might ask: is this relief package a genuine moment of renewal — or simply a pragmatic capitulation to pressure? On face value, the deal delivers to farmers what many felt was overdue. But it also exposes Brussels’ discomfort and creates a precedent that weakening rules can be the answer to systemic problems.
If the CAP is to remain not just a safety net but a driver of sustainable European agriculture, then simplification must be paired with clarity of ambition. Otherwise, we risk witnessing a retreat from Europe’s long-stated objectives of environmental stewardship, social fairness and food-system resilience — and the new deal might prove to be another footnote, rather than a turning point.
Main Image: By Kakoula10 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=144788747
